Next Article in Journal
Do Carbon Emission Trading Schemes Promote the Green Transition of Enterprises? Evidence from China
Next Article in Special Issue
A Science and Community-Driven Approach to Illustrating Urban Adaptation to Coastal Flooding to Inform Management Plans
Previous Article in Journal
A Systematic Review of the Scope and Patterns of Green Consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Data-Driven Approach for Assessing Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Applied to Puget Sound, Washington State, USA
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Coastal Forest Dieback in the Northeast USA: Potential Mechanisms and Management Responses

1
Center for Remote Sensing & Spatial Analysis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
2
Rutgers Climate Institute, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
3
New Jersey Water Science Center, United States Geological Survey, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Retired.
Sustainability 2023, 15(8), 6346; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086346
Submission received: 14 November 2022 / Revised: 24 March 2023 / Accepted: 4 April 2023 / Published: 7 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sea-Level Rising—Coastal Vulnerability and Adaptation Management)

Abstract

:
A number of studies have documented coastal forest dieback as a historical and ongoing process across the Northeast US region. To further develop a current understanding of the state of knowledge, review adaptation and response measures available to land managers, and to identify research and management needs, we conducted a literature review, interviewed experts, and convened a workshop bringing together scientists and land managers. A synthesis of the above suggests that the most important proximate mechanisms driving coastal forest dieback in the Northeast US are sea level rise-induced changes in the groundwater table in concert with increased saltwater inundation related to storm surges. What sets our conceptual model apart from prior work is the greater emphasis placed on the role of rising fresh groundwater levels in increasingly stressing the forest vegetation and decreasing regeneration potential. Episodic storm surges often exceed the salinity or saturation tolerances of existing trees leading to a wave of mortality that leaves the site inhospitable to subsequent regeneration. Maintaining functioning coastal forests across the Northeast US will require that the marsh and forest ecosystems be considered as an integrated unit when determining an appropriate adaptation response. With a better understanding of each of the sea level rise-induced mechanisms at work in these ecosystems, managers may be better prepared for the changes ahead and facilitate proactive adaptation strategies. Easements or buyouts are vital to ensure that there is ample space for the marsh and upland systems to migrate landward together. Forward thinking land use planning is needed to promote the “no net loss” of both marsh and coastal forest ecosystems to ensure the continued provision of their vital services to society.

1. Introduction

Sea level rise is a physical reality that is impacting coastlines across the United States as well as around the globe [1,2], raising great concern about the implications for coastal ecosystems and human communities [2]. Much of the coastal zone of the eastern United States is fringed by low-lying barrier islands backed by shallow lagoonal estuaries and extensive tidal salt marsh [3]. The long term viability of these coastal salt marsh systems in the face of ongoing sea level rise has received increasing scrutiny [4,5]. Through the process of vertical accretion of sediment and organic matter, the tidal salt marsh surface will rise in relation to sea level, i.e., the marsh can continue to grow “up” into a rising sea [4,5]. If there is only a gradual rise in terrain elevation, tidal marshes can also “retreat” landward replacing adjacent upland ecosystems through a process known as marsh migration or transgression [6,7,8]. At many locations along the eastern US coast, this sea level rise-induced expansion of marshes is coming at the expense of the adjacent coastal forests [9]. Various studies have documented that coastal forests are showing signs of stress evidenced by trees at the forest-tidal salt marsh edge dying back and the forests transitioning into tidal salt marsh ecosystems [10,11,12]. These areas have been referred to as “ghost forests” denoting the presence of standing dead trees within or fringing the edge of salt marsh ecosystems [11,13,14]. This coastal forest dieback has been documented to be occurring very broadly across the Northeast [10,12,15,16,17] as well as the Southeast and Gulf coastal plain of the US [18,19,20].
While this phenomenon of coastal forest dieback and replacement with salt marshes as sea level rises has been ongoing for millennia [21,22], there is widespread concern that accelerating sea level rise and intensifying coastal storms may be hastening this process in the Northeastern US [9]. Sea level rise in the Northeastern US to date is higher than the global average [1,23] and is projected to continue to be higher than many areas around the globe [1,2,23,24,25,26]. When coupled with rising sea level, the historic and projected increase in severity of storm surge is likely to increasingly affect coastal areas in the Northeastern US [27]. To better enable climate-smart decision-making, the US Department of Agriculture Northeast Climate Hub convened a group of scientists and land managers to conduct a synthesis of the current state of knowledge concerning how Northeastern US coastal forests, specifically those in mid-Atlantic and southern New England states (Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts), are responding to climate change.
The coastal forests of the mid-Atlantic and southern New England states are commonly a mix of deciduous hardwoods and evergreen conifers with the species composition dependent upon the site level soil moisture gradient and coarser scale latitudinal gradients in species ranges [28,29,30]. The drier upland end of the gradient in these forests are dominated by a diversity of oaks (including white (Quercus alba), southern red (Q. falcata), scarlet (Q. coccinea), and black (Q. velutina)) pines (including pitch (Pinus rigida), loblolly (P. taeda), Virginia (P. virginiana), and shortleaf (P. echinata)) [29]. The wetter end of the gradient is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), American Holly (Ilex opaca), loblolly pine (at southern end of region), pitch pine (in the central portion of the region), and Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) [29]. The transition zone between the salt marsh and adjacent forest is often consists of common reed (Phragmites australis, henceforth referred to as Phragmites), marsh elder (Iva frutescens), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) [29]. The riparian forests towards the southern end of the region largely consist of freshwater tidal swamps (i.e., freshwater swamps that experience daily tidal swings) and dominated by bald cypress, Taxodium distichum, and water tupelo, Nyssa aquatica [31]. In addition to providing protective buffering of inland areas against coastal storms [32,33,34], these forests provide a range of ecosystem services including carbon storage [35,36], timber resources, and habitat for a diversity of plants and animals including a number of species of concern (Global Rank G1–G4) [37]. In a recent assessment of the vulnerability of these coastal forest ecosystems to future climate change in this mid-Atlantic region, two specific forest communities, maritime forests and tidal swamps of the coastal plain, were rated as having high to moderate-high vulnerability [28].
This paper documents this synthesis of scientific literature and inputs from scientific experts to develop a conceptual model of coastal forest dieback in the Northeast US identifying the key driving processes, mechanisms, and ecosystem responses and their linkages. We also include an assessment of potential management approaches to slow or mitigate coastal forest dieback with special relevance to the Northeastern US region. Gaps in current understanding of the underlying processes and ecosystem responses, as well as management approaches, are also highlighted. While this paper is focused on the Northeastern US, the potential mechanisms and management responses that are discussed may be applicable to other locations undergoing sea level rise-induced coastal forest dieback.

2. Methods: Literature Review and Expert Input

A search of the scientific literature was undertaken using the Web of Science (up to and including all of 2022) and the following key terms: ghost forests, coastal forest retreat or transgression, coastal forest dieback, coastal forest loss/deforestation, and sea level rise or saltwater intrusion or storm surge. The abstracts and text were scrutinized to determine the paper’s relevancy to the topic and the Northeast region. Duplicates as well as citations related to mangrove forests were omitted. The geographic region (i.e., Gulf of Mexico, Southeast, Northeast USA) and year of publication were recorded. Though our focus was on the Northeast, studies from these other regions are often pertinent as the topography, landforms and plant communities share many similarities.
With the objective of uncovering knowledge gaps that exist in understanding the coastal forest ecosystem, interviews were conducted with six experts on the Northeastern US coastal forest ecotone or the adjacent salt marsh ecosystem. The experts were chosen for their contributions to key papers on diverse topics found in the literature review. Each expert was asked a series of 11 questions that, in addition to their opinion on knowledge gaps, included their personal experience with how climate change is affecting the system including the surrounding communities and any management strategies being used or that they felt warranted more investigation. More information concerning the interview questions is included in Supplementary Materials.
To further develop a current understanding of the state of knowledge, facilitate exchange among experts, review adaptation and response measures available to land managers, and to identify research and management needs, a convening of regional experts and managers was held at the USDA National Agriculture Library on 23 January 2020. The meeting consisted of 16 presentations on ecological research on coastal forests and the adjacent salt marsh ecosystems and applicable management strategies for these systems. These presentations were followed by a facilitated group discussion with a focus on identifying research gaps and developing a research agenda and management frameworks. A total of 52 professionals from State, Federal, University, non-profit, and private organizations representing all 11 coastal states from South Carolina to Massachusetts were in attendance.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Literature Review

A total of seventy-seven papers were found using the Web of Science and the specific search terms. Starting in 1998, there was a low level of publication until 2019 where the number of papers increased several-fold (Figure 1). Whereas interest in this topic appeared first in the Gulf and Southeast US regions, the number of papers concerning the Northeastern US region has increased dramatically over the past five years (Figure 1). This search as not all encompassing as not all papers pertinent to the topic may have employed these key words in their title or abstract. For example, seminal work from the 1980–1990’s on sea level rise-induced transitions to coastal wetlands [6,7,8] were not included. While there was widespread interest in dieback of mangrove forests along some sections of the Gulf and Southeast coasts, those papers were not included, as our focus was on Coastal Plain forests.

3.2. Conceptual Model

Based on a synthesis of scientific literature and as well as interviews with scientific experts and the outcome of the workshop, we developed a conceptual model of coastal forest dieback in the Northeast US that is graphically depicted in Figure 2. The model differentiates ultimate vs. proximate mechanisms of change that are affecting coastal forest ecosystem-level response. External anthropogenic factors that have a role are also included. Climate change and attendant effects on sea level rise and storm frequency and intensity represent the ultimate driver of the system (Figure 2). These climate drivers initiate a chain of proximate mechanisms that are operating at both shorter-term decadal time scales and longer-term processes working over centuries to millennia [13]. Two of the most important proximate mechanisms associated with rising sea levels appear to be a rising groundwater table and periodic inundation by saline water. These mechanisms change soil conditions along the upland fringe leading to accelerated tree mortality. These same proximate mechanisms also affect subsequent vegetation community dynamics following tree dieback. It is expected that an acceleration of sea level rise rates will further intensify the effects of these mechanisms either singly or in concert. Over longer time scales, the marsh–forest ecotonal boundary (transition zone) shifts landward as sea levels rise and salt marsh vegetation invades the dead or dying forest. Areas of low-lying topography within the coastal zone in close proximity to tidal waterways are most vulnerable [9,13,38]. Anthropogenic factors such as ditching due to mosquito management or groundwater pumping are included as external factors that can increase or decrease the intensity of these mechanisms [39].
To understand the impact that changing storm surges and rising sea levels (Ultimate Drivers in Figure 2) have on the forest ecosystem, it is instructive to first examine the relationship between the physical environment and the location of the marsh–forest ecotone, then delve more into the factors driving soil salinity and soil saturation and the attendant effects on tree health and regeneration.

3.3. Physical Environment and Marsh–Forest Ecotone

The strong links between flooding frequency, pore water salinity, and soil saturation are key environmental factors in determining the spatial distribution of coastal vegetation communities and the location of the marsh–forest ecotone (Figure 2) [40,41,42]. Variation in the salt- and soil-saturation tolerances of individual plant species, lateral salinity changes and flooding conditions, and the intense competitive relationships of the species within these habitats create well-delineated vegetation zones as one progresses across the topographic gradient from coastal marshes through the marsh–forest ecotone to adjacent coastal forests [42,43,44].
A review of the factors controlling groundwater flows is instructive. Precipitation recharges freshwater surficial aquifers that flow from inland/upland recharge areas to discharge areas in freshwater wetlands and streams, brackish estuaries, and saltwater wetlands and water bodies. In coastal areas, less dense fresh groundwater discharging to saltwater wetlands or water bodies flows over denser saline water [45] (p. 6). The salinity of groundwater can be influenced by mixing with adjacent tidal saline water, underlying denser saline water, and/or infiltration of saline water that inundates land surface during exceptional high tides and storm surges [45] (pp. 9–10). In inland areas of coastal forests, freshwater recharge and inflow of fresh groundwater from upland areas result in a freshwater-only environment. In coastal areas, fresh groundwater discharges over denser saline water and there is typically a transitional mixing zone of varying salinity [45] (p. 10). Tidal salt marshes often have complex interactions of fresh and saline water, with fresh groundwater discharging through the salt marsh at low tide and saline water inundating the marsh surface at high tide [45] (p. 10).
Salinity of water in the rooting zone, or soil pore water, is a critical factor affecting the coastal forest ecosystem. The pore water salinity is influenced by a combination of precipitation, groundwater flow from upland areas, salt deposition from marine aerosols (especially during storms), overland saltwater inundation from extreme lunar tides and storm surges, and evapotranspiration [46,47,48]. The high tidal flooding frequency (daily to monthly) in the lower elevations leads to highly saline pore water conditions which, therefore, are often typically colonized by salt-tolerant (halophytic) graminoid and herbaceous plants to form low and high salt marshes. Further inland/upslope, where tidal flooding is infrequent (less than annual), the influence of precipitation and groundwater becomes the driving factor controlling pore water salinity in the unsaturated zone [45].
In the Northeast US, the trees at the marsh–upland ecotone often consist of species that have a moderate degree of salt tolerance (such as eastern red cedar, Juniperus virginiana, or the American holly, Ilex opaca) [49,50] and are able to tolerate occasional storm-driven salt spray (a few times per year) [51]. Where saltwater inundates the coastal forest during extreme storm or tidal events, pore water and shallow groundwater salinity increase from the pulse of saltwater and then gradually decrease as freshwater infiltration from precipitation, density-driven downward vertical flow, and horizontal flux from higher-elevation freshwater recharge areas inland serve to dilute the salinity [45]. Farther inland, coastal wetland forests may consist of species that have low salt tolerance and would not survive extensive salt spray or saline soils from an inundation event despite the eventual dilution of the soil salinity [51].

3.4. Potential Proximate Mechanisms Controlling Forest Dieback

In this next section we discuss how these environmental factors such as soil moisture, soil salinity, or flooding frequency are currently changing due to a combination of sea level rise and other anthropogenic factors and how these changes may affect the Northeast coastal forest ecosystem.

3.4.1. Soil Saturation and Rising Groundwater Levels

In coastal locations where inland groundwater discharges directly to tidal marshes and water bodies (as opposed to non-tidal, higher-elevation streams and wetlands), groundwater level rises as sea level rises [52,53,54]. Rising groundwater levels reduce the thickness of the unsaturated zone (sometimes referred to as the vadose zone), thereby reducing the depth to groundwater (i.e., groundwater table elevation in Figure 2). Recent three-dimensional groundwater-flow modeling of coastal aquifers predicts that the depth to the water table and the thickness of the unsaturated zone will decrease with rising sea levels [55,56,57]. The groundwater modeling was conducted on single layer aquifers of several Mid-Atlantic barrier islands. Further research on the applicability of these simulation model results to potentially more complex mainland conditions is warranted.
With the fresh groundwater table closer to the surface, there is an increasing incidence of saturated soil conditions in low-lying coastal areas [53,58]. If the unsaturated zone decreases, the soil in the rooting zone of the coastal forest may become saturated (Proximate mechanism: soil saturation in Figure 2). Saturated soil greatly limits the amount of oxygen that tree roots can obtain. The absence (anoxia) or near absence of oxygen in the soil (hypoxia) can also promote the growth of anaerobic bacteria that may produce conditions toxic to plants [59]. Most trees can withstand a few days of freshwater flooding during the growing season, but extended flooding conditions affects plant growth, development, and survival [60,61]. While riparian tree species (i.e., tree species adapted to floodplains or freshwater swamp environments) tend to be more tolerant of saturated soils and the resulting anoxic conditions than upland species [59,60,62], very few riparian or wetland tree species can withstand extended soil inundation [63]. Extended drought can also have negative effects on tree health and regeneration. While some work on Gulf coast forests [18] has documented drought as potentially contributing to dieback, the role of drought has not been well studied in the Mid-Atlantic region to date (and thus not included in Figure 2).
Raphael [64] documented longer term shifts in the vegetation composition of the maritime forest growing on the dune and swale topography of Fire Island, NY. The American holly-dominated forest (Ilex opaca) in the swale depressions is experiencing increasing mortality in the tree canopy layer and limited seedling/sapling recruitment. Raphael [64] attributed this decline in the holly-dominated forest to increasingly saturated soil conditions from the thinning of the unsaturated zone which brings the ground water system closer to the ground surface. Similarly, in a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)-dominated coastal forest in Maryland, Kirwan et al. [65] documented an absence of recruitment of new pines despite abundant seedlings and an open canopy, suggesting that the recruitment ability appears to be limited by saturated soils. Given that rising sea levels are leading to higher ground water tables and saturated soil conditions in low-lying areas, this process is likely an important contributor to coastal forest dieback [53,65,66] and will be considered in greater depth later in the paper.

3.4.2. Soil Salinity and Severe Storms

Severe storms coupled with a rising sea level increase the magnitude and longevity of storm surges [27,67,68]. As illustrated in Figure 2, storm surge-related surface inundation of saltwater can intensify soil pore water salinization [66,69]. The impact of this influx of saline water can last for several years after the storm [70]. Increases in salinity of the pore water can directly limit vegetative growth and cause other changes in soil chemistry (Figure 2). The increased salinity can stress the coastal forest vegetation causing leaves to brown (i.e., scorch) or fall and decreases both water uptake and the organism’s nutrient metabolism, negatively affecting the trees’ growth rates [63,71]. Higher soil salinity levels can also increase the solubility of minerals and other solutes, altering biogeochemical cycles [72,73,74]. Increasing salinity levels affect nitrogen uptake, denitrification, and carbon mineralization rates in experimentally manipulated forest soils [75,76,77,78,79], which has been shown to also impact the health and growth of trees. Locations that are inundated by saltwater for extended periods or several times per year may have salinity high enough/long enough to kill trees, whereas locations that are briefly inundated by a storm tide once every few years may have transient salinity beneath the fatal threshold for trees [80,81].
Stalter and Heuser [82] documented the effect of Superstorm Sandy on American Holly trees (Ilex opaca) at Sandy Hook, New Jersey. Hollies growing on lower dune ridges that were inundated by surge waters experienced 50–75% initial leaf loss (6 months after the storm) followed by 85% leaf recovery (20 months after the storm). Hollies growing in salt water-filled depressions were killed [82]. Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) are especially susceptible to storm surge saltwater inundation with extensive diebacks of entire stands following storms [83]. Fernandes et al. [71] observed declining radial growth in response to episodic storm disturbance in the coastal forests of Virginia. Ury et al. [14] documented a pulse of forested wetland dieback in the North Carolina coastal plain in the years immediately following Hurricane Irene in 2011. These NC coastal forested wetlands include significant tracts of Atlantic white cedar that serve as an important seedbank for this regionally important and imperiled species.
Salinity stress is especially evident in tree seedlings as seedlings have a much higher sensitivity to changes in salinity as compared to their full-grown counterparts [84]. Seedlings of common coastal tree species, such as red maple (Acer rubrum), were found to be highly sensitive to saltwater flooding with height and diameter growth significantly reduced [85]. Work on the west coast of Florida by Williams et al. [32] suggested that the inability of young seedlings to resprout after storm surge-related inundation hindered subsequent tree establishment at the extreme seaward margin of the forest. This phenomenon may also apply to northeastern coastal forests but has not been reported to date. The net effect of higher soil salinity in the coastal forest is stressed trees with limited to no regeneration potential (i.e., Forest Health and Regeneration in Figure 2) [66,84].
In addition to changing soil salinity, the extreme winds of severe storms can damage the coastal trees by causing breakage, defoliation, and uprooting [86]. Extreme winds can also increase salt spray which can lead to leaf scorch which can cause partial or complete defoliation [87]. Floating debris transported by wind-driven waves during severe storms can de-bark the trees, damaging the xylem and phloem tissues and negatively affecting nutrient transport within the tree [88]. These damages, combined with the stress caused by the increased soil salinity, can lead to mortality of the stressed stand [66,71,89]. The repercussions of these storm events increase dramatically if more than one storm occurs in successive years [90].
As outlined above, episodic storm surge-related surface inundation of saltwater can cause soil salinization, soil oxygen depletion, and changes in soil chemistry. There was a widespread agreement by the expert interviews and workshop participants that a deeper understanding of the physiological and ecological responses of coastal forest vegetation to a changing physical environment such as soil salinity and saturation is needed. The magnitude and duration of the salinity changes in the pore water, and the effect on common Northeastern coastal forest trees deserves further research. Given that some coastal tree species have limited tolerances to freshwater soil saturation [61], higher levels of tree mortality and/or lower regeneration potential may be the result of overly saturated soils and not the salinization of the soils.
Further research on the magnitude, as well as the spatial and temporal variability, of these driving processes (soil saturation vs. soil salinization), either singly or in combination, is needed. Additionally, both mechanisms may vary in importance spatially and/or temporally. A field experiment approach might be very valuable in elucidating the individual and/or synergistic effects of the mechanisms under different conditions, as would investigating whether ecological factors such as species composition and competition determine how the proximate mechanisms effect the system both in conjunction with, and independent of, location.

3.4.3. Effects of Insect Pests and Invasive Species

The synergistic effects of insect pest outbreaks on tree health were also identified as an issue of concern. For example, Dendroctonus frontalis (southern pine beetle) has expanded into areas of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut [91]. D. frontalis is particularly attracted to Pinus rigida (pitch pine), Pinus taeda (loblolly pine), and Pinus echinata (shortleaf pine), which occupy many of the coastal forests in the mid-Atlantic and southern New England [92]. With increasingly warmer winters, D. frontalis may continue to expand northward. The invasion of the Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) has affected Mid-Atlantic tidal swamps killing large numbers of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) [93]. Workshop participants expressed concern that the presence of pests like D. frontalis may cause greater damage at the marsh–forest ecotone if the trees are already under stress from changes in groundwater, soil salinization or have sustained storm surge damage. Conversely, pests may weaken the trees, making them more susceptible to subsequent storm surge flooding, and thereby leading to greater mortality than may not have occurred otherwise.
An information gap that was identified relates to the role of the invasive form of the common reed, Phragmites australis, in affecting plant community dynamics at the marsh–upland ecotone once a forest starts experiencing dieback. A non-native genotype was introduced to the Mid-Atlantic in the early 1900s and now occupies the upland edge of most salt marshes in this region [94]. Phragmites reproduces both by clones and seed dispersal [95], readily invades any habitat within its growth tolerance range, and is known for establishing quickly and flourishing in disturbed habitats [96,97,98]. These characteristics make Phragmites a highly invasive species and can result in dense monocultures within its range that extend from marsh edge to the edge of the coastal forest, occasionally intermingling with coastal forest shrub species such as marsh elder (Iva frutescens) before transitioning to a solely coastal forest shrub and tree community [98,99,100]. Phragmites is also a very hardy plant [101] and can likely withstand some of the changes in pore water and saturation that are occurring due to the rise in sea level as well as any episodic flooding that occurs from storm surge. These characteristics allow Phragmites populations to readily expand into areas of forest dieback at the marsh/forest ecotone [10,12,13]. As forest trees die, Phragmites can quickly monopolize these canopy openings and shade out tree and shrub seedlings, thereby limiting forest regeneration, especially if an adjacent Phragmites stand is well established before the mortality occurs. Understanding the nuances of the Phragmites invasion, the inhibiting effect it might have on forest regeneration, and the eventual consequences on salt marsh expansion may lead to better management of the ecotone.

3.5. Conceptual Model Reprise

While Tully et al. [69] suggest that saltwater intrusion is the primary mechanism driving coastal forest loss, we suggest that the proximate mechanisms of higher groundwater tables and periodic storm surges appear to work in concert in driving coastal forest dieback. Fagherazzi et al. [66] have posited a “ratchet” model that combines the gradual “press” disturbance of sea level rise with the intermittent “pulse” disturbance of storms. Our conceptual model (Figure 2) shares many similarities with Fagherazzi et al.’s [66] ratchet model. Carr et al. [102] developed a two dimensional transect model to examine the landward transgression of the marsh–forest edge. Similar to the ratchet model, Carr et al.’s [102] results suggest that the landward marsh edge is controlled by the interaction of high-water inundation events and subsequent enhanced forest mortality, resulting in punctuated transgressive (i.e., dieback) events. One subtle distinction between these studies and the present work is that our conceptual model places a greater emphasis on the role of rising fresh groundwater levels in increasingly stressing the forest vegetation and decreasing regeneration potential. The emphasis we place on rising groundwater levels is based on the critical role that fresh groundwater flow plays in the hydrology of the coastal zone [45], as well as on a recent three-dimensional groundwater-flow modeling conducted by the US Geological Survey that predicts that the depth to the freshwater table and the thickness of the unsaturated zone will decrease with rising sea levels [55,56,57].
Figure 3 represents a graphic illustration of our conceptual model (Figure 2) on the effects of longer term sea level rise on the proximate mechanisms driving coastal forest dieback. In inland areas of coastal forests, freshwater recharge and inflow of fresh groundwater from upland areas result in a freshwater-only environment (Figure 3a). The upland edge of the transition zone, where there is a mixing of fresh and saline water, is proximal to the marsh–forest ecotone (Figure 3a). In our conceptual model, the “press” disturbance of sea level rise is working through the proximate mechanisms of rising groundwater levels, increasing the frequency of saturated soil conditions, as well as the movement of the transition zone landward (Figure 3b,c). Given the well documented effect of saturated soils on impeding tree growth and reproduction [53,60,61,63,65], we posit that rising groundwater levels appear to contribute to coastal forest dieback. However, additional research is clearly needed to clarify the significance of rising groundwater levels in comparison to the well documented role of “pulse” disturbances [66,102].

3.6. Anthropogenic Land Use Legacies

The legacy of earlier land use alterations on either intensifying or ameliorating the proximate mechanism causing coastal forest dieback in the Northeast US is unclear (i.e., Anthropogenic Factors in Figure 1). Ditches have been widely used along the coast to increase drainage for either farming or mosquito control. In the Mid-Atlantic and southern New England, parallel ditching on 90% of the tidal marshes between Maine and Virginia was completed by 1938 in an attempt to curb the large salt marsh mosquito population and address public health concerns [103]. Increasing drainage on the marsh causes less standing water, and therefore less mosquito breeding locations [104]. Other areas of the marsh were both diked and ditched to promote the production of Spartina patens (salt hay). Spartina patens grows best in the higher marsh elevation zone where tidal flooding and salinity levels are reduced. To create more suitable habitat, farmers diked marshes to reduce tidal flooding and ditched them to drain the saturated soils to a moisture level optimal for Spartina patens growth [105].
The presence of dikes and ditches may play a large role in the way the present marsh and upland ecosystems react to a rising sea level. The dikes limit sediment flux into the marsh, thereby lowering the marsh accretion rate and creating elevation deficits in the marsh relative to rising sea levels. Ultimately, the affected marsh sits at a lower elevation in the tidal frame than other non-diked marshes [106]. This may make the diked marshes more vulnerable to sea level rise once the dikes have been breached and saline water once again flows into the marsh unrestricted. Adjacent areas of forests may likewise be more susceptible to saline intrusion. The ditches may become pathways for saline water to reach interior marsh or adjacent forests more easily, leading to more rapid change at the marsh/forest ecotonal boundary.
Groundwater discharging into ditches locally lowers the water table: groundwater flows from higher to lower head (hydraulic pressure) and a shorter flow path requires less gradient to move the water [107]. Ditches near the upland edge of salt marshes might locally lower the water table and increase the rate that transient inundation events are flushed from the adjacent forested areas or increase the number and severity of inundation events by creating a pathway for surface-water flow during storm surges. A better understanding of the implications of these common human alterations to the marsh may inform potential restoration approaches for previously diked or ditched marshes, and likewise, suggest the potential utility of dikes or ditches as a management tool.
The human impact on this system may extend to the groundwater pumping of adjacent freshwater aquifers. Groundwater pumping for drinking water or agricultural uses close to the marsh/forest ecotone may lead to increased saltwater intrusion of the groundwater [108,109]. If a fresh groundwater pumping well is positioned above the freshwater-saltwater interface, the pumping of fresh water out of the aquifer can result in upward vertical intrusion of salt water, known as up-coning [108,109]. The anthropogenic saltwater intrusion occurring may, in some circumstances, affect coastal forests. Extensive groundwater pumping can also exacerbate land subsidence and subsequently increase sea level rise rates locally [110]. This increase in local sea level rise rates could accelerate repercussions of changes in other processes that are linked to sea level rise. The groundwater pumping regime can be modified to ameliorate these impacts.

3.7. Management Responses to Coastal Forest Dieback

The consensus of the scientists and managers at the January 2020 convening of experts was that much of the current management focuses on protecting or assisting the salt marsh ecosystem and comparatively less attention has been paid to specifically managing the adjacent coastal forest ecosystem.
Maintaining eroding marsh shoreline edges through “living shorelines” restoration techniques, enhancing vertical accretion rates of the marsh platform via thin layer deposition of dredge spoil sediments, and increasing drainage in ponded marsh interiors are all examples of techniques that are focused primarily on the management of the salt marsh [111]. These marsh management techniques may have some positive value in slowing the negative impact of sea level rise to adjacent forest ecosystems, though these effects have not been well documented. If the management goal is to maintain the coastal forest in place, then best management practices that promote the replacement of the existing vegetation with species better adapted to the new environmental conditions may be required. For example, planting of more flood and/or salt tolerant tree species may be key to maintaining a forest ecosystem in light of changing salinity and saturation conditions [58]. The control of Phragmites may be necessary to reduce competitive interactions and thereby promote the natural establishment and/or facilitate the growth of the planted trees/shrubs [10]. Adopting some form of adaptive management that incorporates active monitoring of forest health was recommended as a best management practice.
Some form of proactive water management through a combination of optimizing delivery of existing freshwater flows, enhancing recharge, and deploying engineered structures to control saltwater intrusion are possible options [29]. As mentioned earlier, the ditching of a salt marsh can be used to alter the hydrology of the marsh and, by extension, the adjacent coastal forest ecosystem. Depending on the site conditions, ditches can be either filled to limit flooding or expanded to increase drainage. A study of marsh sites in New England by Vincent et al. [112] found that the filling of ditches decreased sediment flux into the marsh and subsequently lowered accretion rates. Lower accretion rates create marsh instability, which could have consequences for coastal forest stability. Elsewhere, increased ditching has been used in an attempt to drain ponding of the interior marsh platform and thereby enhance revegetation [111]. The decision to fill or deepen ditches may be a question of which management goal is prioritized for the given area of concern.
The use of engineered infrastructure designed to create a local barrier to sea level rise or protect the salt marsh/coastal forest ecosystems from storm surge are costly, require maintenance, and will need to be adjusted as the conditions continue to change, but might be applicable in select situations. Tide gates are regulated openings through which water may flow freely when the tide moves in one direction, but which close automatically and prevent the water from flowing in the other direction. Coupled with dikes and levees, tide gates have a long history of use in salt hay farming, mosquito control, and protection of assets from storm surges. Such an all-or-nothing approach may be useful in maintaining the existing marsh–forest ecotonal boundary for some time but can lead to unintended negative consequences. In a New England marsh, the reduction of tidal flow stemming from the use of tide gates led to drying of the marsh soils which, in turn, has created habitat that is ideal for the expansion of Phragmites [113,114]. For analysis of historical aerial photography that documents where dike systems have been breached with catastrophic consequences to the marsh and forest behind them, see ref. [12].
More sophisticated tidal modification systems are widely used in Europe and might be applicable in the Northeast US. The Regulated Tidal Exchange (RTE) is a system of tide gates or sluices that are used to control the amount of water entering an area that is surrounded by seawalls [115]. This technique is used to restore tidal flow to mudflats and salt marshes as part of broader coastal protection strategies in the face of sea level rise and storm surges [115,116]. The Controlled Reduced Tide (CRT) technique uses a system of inlet and outlet sluices that are designed to passively control tidal flows into an area surrounded by a sea wall or embankment [117,118]. While projects using RTE and CRT systems have focused on salt marsh maintenance/restoration, their application with the express purpose of slowing the effect of rising sea levels on coastal forests is a potential area for further exploration. Further, these tidal flow control technologies are costly as they need to be designed and implemented at a scale broad enough to be effective and they require continued maintenance.
Workshop participants agreed that due to the spatially varying nature of the proximate mechanisms (Figure 2), identifying which mechanisms may be dominant at a specific site, and understanding the possible synergistic effects among mechanisms is vital to determining appropriate management strategies. For example, a management practice or intervention that might be useful in ameliorating the short-term effects of a storm surge event may be ineffective in responding to a longer-term rise in the water table that has exceeded a given threshold. Site-specific information will ideally help create more effective management plans as well as curb the number of unintended consequences. However, adequately teasing out the site-specific proximate mechanisms may be difficult and expensive, resulting in a lack of information that makes decisions as to the most appropriate management response challenging.
Attempting to minimize forest dieback and maintain a vulnerable coastal forest may be feasible in the short term (i.e., over several decades) but in the face of accelerating sea level rise or intensifying storm surge, will often be a losing proposition over the long term (i.e., over 50 to 100 years). A more promising, longer-term approach may be to acknowledge that coastal marsh systems will continue to migrate into current upland habitats and shift the focus to protecting the existing inland extent of the coastal forest and facilitating the expansion of forest inland into areas that are presently non-forested (i.e., sometimes referred to as managed retreat) [11]. Rather than trying to protect the coastal forest in place, the emphasis should be shifted to ensuring a “no net loss” of coastal forest at a broader regional scale. Many states in the region have land acquisition programs and/or easement programs for different habitat types that could be used as mechanisms to facilitate the protection or restoration of land adjacent to the coastal forest to allow for the migration or expansion of coastal forest habitat (for example, Maryland Department of Planning [119]).

4. Conclusions

Our review of the scientific literature and discussion with leading experts suggests coastal forest dieback is occurring across the entire Eastern US coast with special concern in the Northeast US region. The evidence is strong that increased saltwater inundation related to episodic storm surges [55,69,70] plays a critically important role in northeastern US coastal forest dieback. While recent hydrological modeling studies have suggested that sea level rise-induced changes in the groundwater table [55,56,57,58] may also play a critical role, the empirical evidence is less clear. Further research on the magnitude, as well as the spatial and temporal variability, of these driving processes (soil saturation vs. soil salinization), either singly or in combination, is needed. While it is generally understood that different species of woody plants have varying susceptibility to saturated or saline soils, better documentation of the range in tolerance of common Northeastern US coastal tree and shrub species is needed. This information may lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms operating at a site and inform management interventions.
It is important to consider the marsh and forest ecosystems as an integrated unit when determining an appropriate adaptation response. The key to creating management plans that benefit both the marsh and the upland ecosystems is a collaboration between management entities and experts in both ecosystems. A combined management approach ensures that management effort is beneficial for both ecosystems in the long term. The salt marsh and the adjacent coastal forest are intimately linked and should be considered holistically. With a better understanding of each of the SLR-induced changes and corresponding ecosystem responses, managers may be better prepared for the changes ahead and facilitate proactive adaptation strategies. Finally, given the need for the marsh ecosystems to migrate inland if they are to keep pace with sea level rise, easements or buyouts are vital to ensure that there is ample space for the marsh and upland systems to migrate landward together. Forward thinking land use planning is needed to promote the “no net loss” of both marsh and coastal forest ecosystems to ensure the continued provision of their vital services to society.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su15086346/s1, Questionnaire Adapting to Climate Risk on Working Lands: Saltwater Impact on Forests Project.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.S., R.G.L., M.K. and G.C.; literature review, R.S. and R.G.L.; interviews/workshop, R.S. and M.K.; visualization, R.S. and R.G.L.; writing—original draft preparation, R.S., R.G.L. and G.C.; writing—review and editing R.S., R.G.L., M.K. and G.C.; project administration, M.K.; funding acquisition, M.K. and R.G.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

His work was conducted for the Northeast Climate Hub under United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service Agreement 19-JV-11242306-054. This work was also sponsored by the National Estuarine Research Reserve System Science Collaborative, which supports collaborative research that addresses coastal management problems important to the reserves. The Science Collaborative is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and managed by the University of Michigan Water Center (NA19NOS4190058).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the support and guidance of the USDA-Northeast Climate Hub leadership including David Hollinger, and Erin Lane, as well as additional project support from Karrah Kwasnik, USDA-Northeast Climate Hub, Chris Miller, USDA NRCS; Steve McNulty and Nancy Gibson, USDA Southeast Climate Hub; and Cynthia West, USDA Forest Service. The graphic illustration of coastal forest dieback under rising sea levels (Figure 2) was designed by Karrah Kwasnik, USDA-Northeast Climate Hub. We would like to express our gratitude for the 6 experts interviewed whose identities are confidential. We wish to acknowledge all our colleagues from throughout both the Northeast region and the Southeast region, who generously participated in sharing their insights, as well as the convening in January 2020. We would specifically like to recognize the presenters at the January 2020 convening: Ken Able, Rutgers University; Rob Tunstead, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Jennifer Walker, Rutgers University; Keryn Gedan, George Washington University; Matthew Kirwan, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences; Matthew Hurd, Maryland Department of Natural Resources; LeeAnn Haaf, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary; Matt Whitbeck, Blackwater Wildlife Refuge; Katie Spidalieri, Georgetown Climate Center; Stephen Smith, National Park Service, Cape Cod National Seashore; Kelly Collins, Maryland Department of Natural Resources; Fawn McGee, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Debbie Herr Cornwell, Maryland Department of Planning; and Steve McNulty, USDA Southeast Climate Hub. For more information on the January 2020 meeting on Coastal Climate Change and Forest Impacts; Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Synthesis and Coordination Meeting including the presentations given, see the Rutgers Climate Institute website. Report reviewers who we would like to recognize include Ken Able, Rutgers University; Anthony Broccoli, Rutgers University; LeeAnn Haaf, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary; Robert Kopp, Rutgers University; and Jennifer Walker, Rutgers University. We also want to express our thanks to six anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly helped to strengthen this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Sweet, W.V.; Kopp, R.E.; Weaver, C.P.; Obeysekera, J.; Horton, R.M.; Thieler, E.R.; Zervas, C. Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States; NOAA Technical Report NOS Co-OPS 083; NOAA: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
  2. Oppenheimer, M.; Hinkel, J. Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities Supplementary Material. In IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kennish, M.J. Coastal salt marsh systems in the U.S.: A review of anthropogenic impacts. J. Coast. Res. 2001, 17, 731–748. [Google Scholar]
  4. Day, J.W.; Christian, R.R.; Boesch, D.M.; Yáñez-Arancibia, A.; Morris, J.; Twilley, R.R.; Naylor, L.; Schaffner, L.; Stevenson, C. Consequences of climate change on the ecogeomorphology of coastal wetlands. Estuaries Coasts 2008, 31, 477–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cahoon, D.R.; Guntenspergen, G.R. Climate change, sea level rise and coastal wetlands. Natl. Wetl. Newsl. 2010, 32, 8–12. [Google Scholar]
  6. Titus, J.G. Sea level rise and wetland loss: An overview. In Titus, JG Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Wetlands; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1988; p. 186. [Google Scholar]
  7. Moorhead, K.K.; Brinson, M.M. Response of wetlands to rising sea level in the lower coastal plain of North Carolina. Ecol. Appl. 1995, 5, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Brinson, M.M.; Christian, R.R.; Blum, L.K. Multiple states in the sea-level induced transition from terrestrial forest to estuary. Estuaries 1995, 18, 648–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schieder, N.W.; Kirwan, M.L. Sea-level driven acceleration in coastal forest retreat. Geology 2019, 47, 1151–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Smith, J.A. The role of Phragmites australis in mediating inland salt marsh migration in a mid-Atlantic estuary. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e65091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Kirwan, M.L.; Gedan, K.B. Sea-level driven land conversion and the formation of ghost forests. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Sacatelli, R.M. A Look at Upland Salt Marsh Edge Migration in New Jersey. Master’s Thesis, Rutgers University-School of Graduate Studies, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  13. Able, K.W.; Walker, J.; Horton, B.P. Ghost forests in the Mullica Valley: Indicators of sea-level rise. Sojourn 2018, 2, 87–96. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ury, E.A.; Yang, X.; Wright, J.P.; Bernhardt, E.S. Rapid deforestation of a coastal landscape driven by sea-level rise and extreme events. Ecol. Appl. 2021, 31, e02339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hussein, A.H. Modeling of sea-level rise and deforestation in submerging coastal ultisols of Chesapeake Bay. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Schieder, N.W.; Walters, D.C.; Kirwan, M.L. Massive upland to wetland conversion compensated for historical marsh loss in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Estuaries Coasts 2018, 41, 940–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chen, Y.; Kirwan, M.L. Climate-driven decoupling of wetland and upland biomass trends on the mid-Atlantic coast. Nat. Geosci. 2022, 15, 913–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Desantis, L.R.; Bhotika, S.; Williams, K.; Putz, F.E. Sea-level rise and drought interactions accelerate forest decline on the Gulf Coast of Florida, USA. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2007, 13, 2349–2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. White, E., Jr.; Kaplan, D. Identifying the effects of chronic saltwater intrusion in coastal floodplain swamps using remote sensing. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021, 258, 112385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. White, E.E.; Ury, E.A.; Bernhardt, E.S.; Yang, X. Climate change driving widespread loss of coastal forested wetlands throughout the North American coastal plain. Ecosystems 2022, 25, 812–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Clark, J.S. Coastal forest tree populations in a changing environment, southeastern Long Island, New York. Ecol. Monogr. 1986, 56, 259–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Able, K.W. From Cedar Cemeteries to Marsh Lakes: A Case Study of Sea-Level Rise and Habitat Change in a Northeastern US Salt Marsh. Estuaries Coasts 2021, 44, 1649–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kopp, R.E.; Andrews, C.; Broccoli, A.; Garner, A.; Kreeger, D.; Leichenko, R.; Lin, N.; Little, C.; Miller, J.A.; Miller, J.K.; et al. New Jersey’s Rising Seas and Changing Coastal Storms. In Report of the 2019 Science and Technical Advisory Panel. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; Prepared for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: Trenton, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gornitz, V.M.; Oppenheimer, M.; Kopp, R.; Orton, P.; Buchanan, M.; Lin, N.; Horton, R.; Bader, D.A. New York City Panel on Climate Change 2019 Report Chapter 3: Sea Level Rise. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2019, 1439, 71–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Boesch, D.F.; Boicourt, W.C.; Cullather, R.I.; Ezer, T.; Galloway, G.E., Jr.; Johnson, Z.P.; Kilbourne, K.H.; Kirwan, M.L.; Kopp, R.E.; Land, S.; et al. Sea-Level Rise: Projections for Maryland 2018; University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science: Cambridge, MD, USA, 2018; 27p. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sweet, W.V.; Hamlington, B.D.; Kopp, R.E.; Weaver, C.P.; Barnard, P.L.; Bekaert, D.; Brooks, W.; Craghan, M.G.; Dusek, G.; Frederikse, T.; et al. Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines; NOAA Technical Report NOS 01; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2022; 111p.
  27. USGCRP. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment; Reidmiller, D.R., Avery, C.W., Easterling, D.R., Kunkel, K.E., Lewis, K.L.M., Maycock, T.K., Stewart, B.C., Eds.; U.S. Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; Volume II. [CrossRef]
  28. Butler-Leopold, P.R.; Iverson, L.R.; Thompson, F.R.; Brandt, L.A.; Handler, S.D.; Janowiak, M.K.; Shannon, P.D.; Swanston, C.W.; Bearer, S.; Bryan, A.M.; et al. Mid-Atlantic Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis: A Report from the Mid-Atlantic Climate Change Response Framework Project; Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-181; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2018.
  29. Anderson, C.J.; Lockaby, B.G.; Click, N. Changes in wetland forest structure, basal growth, and composition across a tidal gradient. Am. Midl. Nat. 2013, 170, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Janowiak, M.K.; D’Amato, A.W.; Swanston, C.W.; Iverson, L.; Thompson, F.R.; Dijak, W.D.; Matthews, S.; Peters, M.P.; Prasad, A.; Fraser, J.S.; et al. New England and Northern New York Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis: A Report from the New England Climate Change Response Framework Project; Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-173; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2018.
  31. Larsen, H.S. Baldcypress--tupelo. In Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada; Eyre, F.H., Jr., Ed.; Society of American Foresters: Washington, DC, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  32. Williams, K.; Meads, M.V.; Sauerbrey, D.A. The roles of seedling salt-tolerance and resprouting in forest zonation on the west coast of Florida, USA. Am. J. Bot. 1998, 84, 1745–1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Barbier, E.B.; Hacker, S.D.; Kennedy, C.; Koch, E.W.; Stier, A.C.; Silliman, B.R. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 2011, 81, 169–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Duarte, C.M.; Losada, I.J.; Hendriks, I.E.; Mazarrasa, I.; Marbà, N. The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 961–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. McGarvey, J.C.; Thompson, J.R.; Epstein, H.E.; Shugart, H.H., Jr. Carbon storage in old-growth forests of the Mid-Atlantic: Toward better understanding the eastern forest carbon sink. Ecology 2015, 96, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Fahey, T.J.; Woodbury, P.B.; Battles, J.J.; Goodale, C.L.; Hamburg, S.P.; Ollinger, S.V.; Woodall, C.W. Forest carbon storage: Ecology, management, and policy. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2010, 8, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Anderson, M.G.; Clark, M.; Ferree, C.E.; Jospe, A.; Olivero Sheldon, A.; Weaver, K.J. Northeast Habitat Guides: A Companion to the Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat Maps; The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science, Eastern Regional Office: Boston, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  38. Molino, G.D.; Carr, J.A.; Ganju, N.K.; Kirwan, M.L. Variability in marsh migration potential determined by topographic rather than anthropogenic constraints in the Chesapeake Bay region. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 2022, 7, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. White, E.; Kaplan, D. Restore or retreat? Saltwater intrusion and water management in coastal wetlands. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2017, 3, e01258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Strange, E.; Shellenbarger Jones, A.; Bosch, C.; Jones, R.; Kreeger, D.; Titus, J.G. Mid-Atlantic Coastal Habitats and Environmental Implications of Sea Level Rise, Background Documents Supporting Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 4; Titus, J.G., Strange, E.M., Eds.; EPA 430R07004; U.S. EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; Section 3; pp. 188–342.
  41. Barlow, P.M.; Reichard, E.G. Saltwater intrusion in coastal regions of North America. Hydrogeol. J. 2010, 18, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wasson, K.; Woolfolk, A.; Fresquez, C. Ecotones as indicators of changing environmental conditions: Rapid migration of salt marsh-upland boundaries. Estuaries Coasts 2013, 36, 654–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bertness, M.D. Zonation of Spartina patens and Spartina alterniflora in New England salt marsh. Ecology 1991, 72, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bertness, M.D.; Ellison, A.M. Determinants of pattern in a New England salt marsh plant community. Ecol. Monogr. 1987, 57, 129–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Barlow, P.M. Chapter 1. Occurrence and flow of freshwater and saltwater in coastal aquifers. In Ground Water in Freshwater-Saltwater Environments of the Atlantic Coast; Geological Survey (USGS): Reston, VA, USA, 2003; Volume 1262. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wells, B.W.; Shunk, I.V. Salt Spray: An Important Factor in Coastal Ecology; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club: New York, NY, USA, 1938; pp. 485–492. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wilson, A.M.; Evans, T.; Moore, W.; Schutte, C.A.; Joye, S.B.; Hughes, A.H.; Anderson, J.L. Groundwater controls ecological zonation of salt marsh macrophytes. Ecology 2015, 96, 840–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Zhang, Y.; Li, W.; Sun, G.; King, J.S. Coastal wetland resilience to climate variability: A hydrologic perspective. J. Hydrol. 2019, 568, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. USDA NRCS. Eastern Red Cedar Fact Sheet. 2002. Available online: https://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_juvi.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2019).
  50. USDA NRCS. American Holly Plant Fact Sheet. 2002. Available online: https://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_ilop.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2019).
  51. Appleton, B.L.; Greene, V.; Smith, A.; French, S.; Kane, B.; Fox, L.; Downing, A.K.; Gilland, T. Trees and Shrubs that Tolerate Saline Soils and Salt Spray Drift; Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication: Petersburg, VA, USA, 2009; p. 430-031. [Google Scholar]
  52. Bjerklie, D.M.; Mullaney, J.R.; Stone, J.R.; Skinner, B.J.; Ramlow, M.A. Preliminary Investigation of the Effects of Sea-Level Rise on Groundwater Levels in New Haven, Connecticut; U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1025; US Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2012.
  53. Masterson, J.P.; Fienen, M.N.; Thieler, E.R.; Gesch, D.B.; Gutierrez, B.T.; Plant, N.G. Effects of sea level rise on barrier island groundwater system dynamics–ecohydrological implications. Ecohydrology 2013, 7, 1064–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Knott, J.F.; Jacobs, J.M.; Daniel, J.S.; Kirshen, P. Modeling groundwater rise caused by sea-level rise in coastal New Hampshire. J. Coast. Res. 2019, 35, 143–157. [Google Scholar]
  55. Carleton, G.B.; Charles, E.G.; Fiore, A.R.; Winston, R.B. Simulation of Water-Table Response to Sea-Level Rise and Change in Recharge, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, New Jersey; U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5080; US Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2021. [CrossRef]
  56. Fleming, B.J.; Raffensperger, J.P.; Goodling, P.J.; Masterson, J. Simulated Effects of Sea-Level Rise on the Shallow, Fresh Groundwater System of Assateague Island, Maryland and Virginia; U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5104; US Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2021. [CrossRef]
  57. Misut, P.E.; Dressler, S. Simulation of Water-Table and Freshwater/Saltwater Interface Response to Climate-Change-Driven Sea-Level Rise and Changes in Recharge at Fire Island National Seashore, New York; US Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2021.
  58. Nuttle, W.K.; Portnoy, J.W. Effect of rising sea level on runoff and groundwater discharge to coastal ecosystems. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 1992, 34, 203–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Whitlow, T.H.; Harris, R.W. Flood Tolerance in Plants: A State-of-the-Art Review; Technical Report E-79-2; U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station: Vicksburg, MS, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kozlowski, T.T. Responses of Woody Plants to Flooding and Salinity. Tree Physiol. Monogr. 1997, 1, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Parent, C.; Capelli, N.; Berger, A.; Crèvecoeur, M.; Dat, J.F. An overview of plant responses to soil waterlogging. Plant Stress 2008, 2, 20–27. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kramer, K.; Vreugdenhill, S.F.; Van der Werf, D.C. Effects of flooding on the recruitment, damage and mortality of riparian tree species: A field and simulation study on the Rhine floodplain. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 225, 3893–3903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kozlowski, T.T. Physiological-Ecological Impacts of Flooding on Riparian Forest Ecosystems. Wetlands 2002, 22, 550–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Raphael, J. 50 Years of Vegetation Change in a Holly Maritime Forest. Master’s Thesis, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  65. Kirwan, M.L.; Kirwan, J.L.; Copenheaver, C.A. Dynamics of an estuarine forest and its response to rising sea level. J. Coast. Res. 2007, 23, 457–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Fagherazzi, S.; Anisfeld, S.C.; Blum, L.K.; Long, E.V.; Feagin, R.A.; Fernandes, A.; Kearney, W.S.; Williams, K. Sea level rise and the dynamics of the marsh-upland boundary. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019, 7, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Woodruff, J.D.; Irish, J.L.; Camargo, S.J. Coastal flooding by tropical cyclones and sea-level rise. Nature 2013, 504, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Sweet, W.V.; Horton, R.; Kopp, R.E.; LeGrande, A.N.; Romanou, A. Sea level rise. In Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment; Wuebbles, D.J., Fahey, D.W., Hibbard, K.A., Dokken, D.J., Stewart, B.C., Maycock, T.K., Eds.; U.S. Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; Volume I, pp. 333–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Tully, K.K.; Epanchin-Niell, R.; Strong, A.; Bernhardt, E.S.; Todd Bendor, T.; Mitchell, M.; Kominoski, J.; Jordan, T.E.; Neubauer, S.C.; Weston, N.B. The invisible flood: The chemistry, ecology, and social implications of coastal saltwater intrusion. BioScience 2019, 69, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dai, Z.; Amatya, D.M.; Sun, G.; Trettin, C.C.; Li, C.; Li, H. Climate variability and its impact on forest hydrology on South Carolina coastal plain, USA. Atmosphere 2011, 2, 330–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Fernandes, A.; Rollinson, C.R.; Kearney, W.S.; Dietze, M.C.; Fagherazzi, S. Declining radial growth response of coastal forests to hurricanes and nor’easters. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 2018, 123, 832–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hopfensperger, K.N.; Burgin, A.J.; Schoepfer, V.A.; Helton, A.M. Impacts of saltwater incursion on plant communities, anaerobic microbial metabolism, and resulting relationships in a restored freshwater wetland. Ecosystems 2014, 17, 792–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Herbert, E.R.; Boon, P.; Burgin, A.J.; Neubauer, S.C.; Franklin, R.B.; Ardón, M.M.; Hopfensperger, K.N.; Lamers, L.P.; Gell, P. A global perspective on wetland salinization: Ecological consequences of a growing threat to freshwater wetlands. Ecosphere 2015, 6, 1–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Weissman, D.S.; Tully, K.L. Saltwater intrusion affects nutrient concentrations in soil porewater and surface waters of coastal habitats. Ecosphere 2020, 11, e03041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Craft, C.B. Tidal freshwater forest accretion does not keep pace with sea level rise. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012, 18, 3615–3623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Marton, J.M.; Herbert, E.R.; Craft, C.B. Effects of saltwater intrusion on denitrification and greenhouse gas emissions from laboratory-incubated tidal forests in southeastern Georgia, USA. Wetlands 2012, 32, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ardón, M.; Morse, J.L.; Colman, B.P.; Bernhardt, E.S. Drought-induced saltwater incursion leads to increased wetland nitrogen export. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 2976–2985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Ardón, M.; Helton, A.M.; Bernhardt, E.S. Salinity effects on greenhouse gas emissions from wetland soils are contingent upon hydrologic setting: A microcosm experiment. Biogeochemistry 2018, 140, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Jun, M.; Altor, A.; Craft, C.B. Effects of increased salinity and inundation on inorganic N and P sorption by tidal freshwater floodplain forest soils. Estuaries Coasts 2013, 36, 508–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. McKee, M.; White, J.R.; Putnam-Duhon, L.A. Simulated storm surge effects on freshwater coastal wetland soil porewater salinity and extractable ammonium levels: Implications for marsh recovery after storm surge. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2016, 181, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Holt, T.; Seibert, S.L.; Greskowiak, J.; Freund, H.; Massmann, G. Impact of storm tides and inundation frequency on water table salinity and vegetation on a juvenile barrier island. J. Hydrol. 2017, 554, 666–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Stalter, R.; Heuser, J. Survival and growth of Ilex opaca Following Superstorm Sandy, Sandy Hook, New Jersey. Holly Soc. J. 2015, 33, 3–9. [Google Scholar]
  83. USDA. Forest Service. Atlantic White Cedar. Available online: https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/misc/ag_654/volume_1/chamaecyparis/thyoides.htm (accessed on 10 December 2019).
  84. Kearney, W.S.; Fernandes, A.; Fagherazzi, S. Sea-level rise and storm surges structure coastal forests into persistence and regeneration niches. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Conner, W.H.; Askew, G.R. Impact of saltwater flooding on red maple, redbay, and Chinese tallow seedlings. Astanea 1993, 58, 214–219. [Google Scholar]
  86. Merry, K.; Bettinger, P.; Hepinstall, J. Physical and biological responses of forests to tropical cyclones affecting the United States Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2009, 5, 16. [Google Scholar]
  87. Moss, A.E. Effect on trees of wind-driven salt water. J. For. 1940, 38, 421–425. [Google Scholar]
  88. Stoffel, M.; Bollschweiler, M.; Butler, D.R.; Luckman, B.H. Tree rings and natural hazards: An introduction. In Tree Rings and Natural Hazards; Stoffel, M., Bollschweiler, M., Butler, D., Luckman, B., Eds.; Advances in Global Change Research; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherland, 2010; Volume 41, pp. 3–23. [Google Scholar]
  89. Conner, W.H.; Inabinette, L.W. Tree growth in three South Carolina (USA) swamps after Hurricane Hugo: 1991–2001. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 182, 371–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Douglas, S.H.; Bernier, J.C.; Smith, K.E. Analysis of multi-decadal wetland changes, and cumulative impact of multiple storms 1984 to 2017. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 26, 1121–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Lesk, C.; Coffel, E.; D’Amato, A.W.; Dodds, K.; Horton, R. Threats to North American forests from southern pine beetle with warming winters. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2017, 7, 713–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Anderson, R.F.; Doggett, C.A. Host Preference of Southern Pine Beetle in North Carolina; Forestry Note No. 66; North Carolina Division of Forest Resources: Raleigh, NC, USA, 1993.
  93. Jacobsen, A. Emerald Ash Borer in the Ash (Fraxinus spp.)-Dominated Tidal Swamps of the Lower Patuxent River, Maryland. Northeast. Nat. 2020, 27, 817–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mozdzer, T.J.; Brisson, J.; Hazelton, E.L. Physiological ecology and functional traits of North American native and Eurasian introduced Phragmites australis lineages. AoB Plants 2013, 5, plt048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Hazelton, E.L.; Downard, R.; Kettenring, K.M.; McCormick, M.K.; Whigham, D.F. Spatial and temporal variation in brackish wetland seedbanks: Implications for wetland restoration following Phragmites control. Estuaries Coasts 2018, 41, 68–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Rice, D.; Rooth, J. Colonization and expansion of Phragmites australis in upper Chesapeake Bay tidal marshes. Wetlands 2000, 20, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bart, D.; Hartman, J.M. Environmental determinants of Phragmites australis expansion in a New Jersey salt marsh: An experimental approach. Oikos 2000, 89, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Chambers, R.M.; Meyerson, L.A.; Saltonstall, K. Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquatic botany 1999, 64, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Windham, L.; Lathrop, R.G. Effects of Phragmites australis (common reed) invasion on aboveground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidal marsh of the Mullica River, New Jersey. Estuaries 1999, 22, 927–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Windham, L. Comparison of biomass production and decomposition between Phragmites australis (common reed) and Spartina patens (salt hay grass) in brackish tidal marshes of New Jersey, USA. Wetlands 2001, 21, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Engloner, A.I. Structure, growth dynamics and biomass of reed (Phragmites australis)—A review. Flora-Morphol. Distrib. Funct. Ecol. Plants 2009, 204, 331–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Carr, J.; Guntenspergen, G.; Kirwan, M. Modeling marsh-forest boundary transgression in response to storms and sea-level rise. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2020, 47, e2020GL088998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bourne, W.S.; Cottam, C. Some Biological Effects of Ditching Tidewater Marshes; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Research Report 19; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1950; 30p.
  104. Wolfe, R.J. Effects of open marsh water management on selected tidal marsh resources: A review. J. Am. Mosq. Control. Assoc. 1996, 12, 701–712. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  105. Hinkle, R.L.; Mitsch, W.J. Salt marsh vegetation recovery at salt hay farm wetland restoration sites on Delaware Bay. Ecol. Eng. 2005, 25, 240–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Smith, J.A.; Hafner, S.F.; Niles, L.J. The impact of past management practices on tidal marsh resilience to sea level rise in the Delaware Estuary. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 149, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Harvey, J.W.; Odum, W.E. The influence of tidal marshes on upland groundwater discharge to estuaries. Biogeochemistry 1990, 10, 217–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Reilly, T.E.; Goodman, A.S. Analysis of saltwater upconing beneath a pumping well. J. Hydrol. 1987, 89, 169–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ferguson, G.; Gleeson, T. Vulnerability of coastal aquifers to groundwater use and climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 342–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Sun, H.; Grandstaff, D.; Shagam, R. Land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal: Potential damage of subsidence and sea level rise in southern New Jersey, USA. Environ. Geol. 1999, 37, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wigand, C.; Ardito, T.; Chaffee, C.; Ferguson, W.; Paton, S.; Raposa, K.; Vandemoer, C.; Watson, E. A climate change adaptation strategy for management of coastal marsh systems. Estuaries Coasts 2017, 40, 682–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Vincent, R.E.; Burdick, D.M.; Dionne, M. Ditching and ditch-plugging in New England salt marshes: Effects on hydrology, elevation, and soil characteristics. Estuaries Coasts 2013, 36, 610–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Roman, C.T.; Niering, W.A.; Warren, R.S. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restriction. Environ. Manag. 1984, 8, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Roman, C.T.; Garvine, R.W.; Portnoy, J.W. Hydrologic modeling as a predictive basis for ecological restoration of salt marshes. Environ. Manag. 1995, 19, 559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Masselink, G.; Hanley, M.E.; Halwyn, A.C.; Blake, W.; Kingston, K.; Newton, T.; Williams, M. Evaluation of salt marsh restoration by means of self-regulating tidal gate–Avon estuary, South Devon, UK. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 106, 174–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Regulated Tidal Exchange: An Inter-Tidal Habitat Creation Technique; Environment Agency: Peterborough, UK, 2003. Available online: http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/Images/RTE_tcm9-261368.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2019).
  117. Meire, P.; Ysebaert, T.; Van Damme, S.; Van den Bergh, E.; Maris, T.; Struyf, E. The Scheldt estuary: A description of a changing ecosystem. Hydrobiologia 2005, 540, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Maris, T.; Cox, T.; Temmerman, S.; De Vleeschauwer, P.; Van Damme, S.; De Mulder, T.; Van den Bergh, E.; Meire, P. Tuning the tide: Creating ecological conditions for tidal marsh development in a flood control area. Hydrobiologia 2007, 588, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Maryland Department of Planning; Dubow, J.; Cornwell, D.H.; Andreasen, D.; Staley, A.; Tully, K.; Gedan, K.; Epanchin-Niell, R. State of Maryland Plan to Adapt to Saltwater Intrusion and Salinization. 2019. Available online: https://planning.maryland.gov/Documents/OurWork/envr-planning/2019-1212-Marylands-plan-to-adapt-to-saltwater-intrusion-and-salinization.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2020).
Figure 1. Results of Web of Science search on key terms: ghost forests, coastal forest retreat or transgression, coastal forest dieback, coastal forest loss/deforestation, and sea level rise or saltwater intrusion or storm surge. While the focus of the literature review was on the Northeast USA, papers from other US regions were included here for comparative purposes.
Figure 1. Results of Web of Science search on key terms: ghost forests, coastal forest retreat or transgression, coastal forest dieback, coastal forest loss/deforestation, and sea level rise or saltwater intrusion or storm surge. While the focus of the literature review was on the Northeast USA, papers from other US regions were included here for comparative purposes.
Sustainability 15 06346 g001
Figure 2. A concept map summary of processes controlling forest edge migration as compiled from relevant literature. The blue color denotes the ultimate drivers of change. Green denotes proximate mechanisms of change. Red denotes external anthropogenic factors that have a role in change. Purple is the ecosystem-level response that occurs due to the changes in the controlling processes.
Figure 2. A concept map summary of processes controlling forest edge migration as compiled from relevant literature. The blue color denotes the ultimate drivers of change. Green denotes proximate mechanisms of change. Red denotes external anthropogenic factors that have a role in change. Purple is the ecosystem-level response that occurs due to the changes in the controlling processes.
Sustainability 15 06346 g002
Figure 3. Graphic illustration of coastal forest dieback under rising sea levels. (a) Year 2020: Precipitation leads to freshwater recharge of surficial aquifers that flows from inland/upland recharge areas to discharge areas in freshwater wetlands and streams, brackish estuaries, and saltwater wetlands and water bodies. In coastal areas, less dense fresh groundwater discharging to saltwater wetlands or water bodies flows over and eventually mixes with denser saline water. (b) Year 2060: The likelihood of coastal flooding rises as sea level rises, bringing further inland daily/monthly tidal flooding, periodic storm surges, and the fresh/saline transition zone in shallow groundwater. Over time, the further inland reach of storm surges results in coastal forest dieback (referred to as ghost forests because of still standing dead trees). (c) Year 2100: Rising sea levels also raise the water table tens to hundreds of meters inland from tidal waters, resulting in a thinning vadose zone (variably saturated-unsaturated zone) such that the permanent water table is closer to the ground surface. The resulting saturated soils stress existing vegetation and can ultimately convert forested wetlands to standing-water wetlands with accompanying forest dieback.
Figure 3. Graphic illustration of coastal forest dieback under rising sea levels. (a) Year 2020: Precipitation leads to freshwater recharge of surficial aquifers that flows from inland/upland recharge areas to discharge areas in freshwater wetlands and streams, brackish estuaries, and saltwater wetlands and water bodies. In coastal areas, less dense fresh groundwater discharging to saltwater wetlands or water bodies flows over and eventually mixes with denser saline water. (b) Year 2060: The likelihood of coastal flooding rises as sea level rises, bringing further inland daily/monthly tidal flooding, periodic storm surges, and the fresh/saline transition zone in shallow groundwater. Over time, the further inland reach of storm surges results in coastal forest dieback (referred to as ghost forests because of still standing dead trees). (c) Year 2100: Rising sea levels also raise the water table tens to hundreds of meters inland from tidal waters, resulting in a thinning vadose zone (variably saturated-unsaturated zone) such that the permanent water table is closer to the ground surface. The resulting saturated soils stress existing vegetation and can ultimately convert forested wetlands to standing-water wetlands with accompanying forest dieback.
Sustainability 15 06346 g003aSustainability 15 06346 g003b
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sacatelli, R.; Kaplan, M.; Carleton, G.; Lathrop, R.G. Coastal Forest Dieback in the Northeast USA: Potential Mechanisms and Management Responses. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086346

AMA Style

Sacatelli R, Kaplan M, Carleton G, Lathrop RG. Coastal Forest Dieback in the Northeast USA: Potential Mechanisms and Management Responses. Sustainability. 2023; 15(8):6346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086346

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sacatelli, Rachael, Marjorie Kaplan, Glen Carleton, and Richard G. Lathrop. 2023. "Coastal Forest Dieback in the Northeast USA: Potential Mechanisms and Management Responses" Sustainability 15, no. 8: 6346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086346

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop